Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Scarborough Hydro Green Space — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksAgincourt North (129)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarborough Hydro Green Space

Neighbourhood Park, above average overall (score 40, rank ~76th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Scarborough Hydro Green Space scores 40 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 6.34 ha

Vitality Score
40/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence
40.0 / 100
Citywide
75th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
66th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
35
median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=66)
Performance gap
+6
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 40 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.

Download JSON
What pushed this score up or down vs a neutral 50weight × score
Amenity Diversity0 · p62
-10.0
Edge Activation30 · p87
-5.1
Natural Comfort25 · p6
-3.8
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Connectivity68 · p87
+3.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p60
+1.6

Sum of contributions = the headline score. A negative bar means that dimension dragged the park below the city-wide neutral baseline.

Why this park works

Scarborough Hydro Green Space works because its connectivity score (68) is in the top tier and its edge activation (30) is also top quartile (19 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 10 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Scarborough Hydro Green Space is held back by natural comfort (25, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (25, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Scarborough Hydro Green Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (68) significantly outpaces natural comfort (25) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+6 vs the median in large Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 6.3 ha, framed by 5 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
29.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (transit_stop) and 2 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot). Active edges keep "eyes on the park" through the day; parking lots, blank institutional walls, rail and highway frontages drain street life.

Source: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
67.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 45 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 19 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~1,182 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)45
Transit stops (400 m)19
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.51
Park perimeter1,182 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 30%
24.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~640 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)640 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used204

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
65.5 / 100

118 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (5 mid-rise, 113 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.8 m (~2 floors); 10.0 buildings per 100 m of 1,182 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 5 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m118
Buildings within 50 m118
Avg edge height5.8 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building18.6 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)5
Low-rise (< 3 floors)113
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density9.98 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge4%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,182 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" — they suppress foot traffic and isolate the park from its neighbourhood.

Source: Toronto Street Centreline (highways) + rail layer + OSM landuse + building footprints

Equity Context

contextinferred 15%
50.0 / 100

Equity Context requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence — read with caution.

Source: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles

Amenities (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (12)

  • transit stop15 m
  • transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Cleadon Rd18 m
  • transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Bramblebrook Ave36 m
  • transit stop36 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • transit stop58 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • transit stop — Midland Ave at McNicoll Ave163 m
  • transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Midland Avenue176 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Midland Avenue192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureScarborough Hydro Green Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    76th
  • Edge activation
    87th
  • Connectivity
    87th
  • Amenity diversity
    62th
  • Natural comfort
    6th
  • Enclosure
    60th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Human activity signals — not available

No activity signals have landed for this park yet. The model has scored its physical form but it can’t yet say how often it’s programmed, photographed, or walked through. See /data-ethics for what we will and will not collect.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Scarborough Hydro Green Spacematters. We’re testing whether the model lines up with how people actually use the park. Submissions are stored locally; no account needed.

Tell us how this park feels

We measure structure (canopy, edges, connectivity). You measure feeling. Both matter — and disagreement is itself useful civic data.

Rate this park on as many dimensions as you have an opinion about. 1 = not at all · 5 = strongly. Skip the ones you don't feel sure about. Aggregated only — no comments stored at the row level.

feels socially active
feels comfortable
feels safe
feels connected
feels welcoming
feels ecological / natural
feels good for lingering
feels family-friendly
feels culturally important

What would improve this park?

Generated from the weakest measured dimensions — a starting point, not a prescription.

  • Activate the edges: encourage cafés, retail or community uses on the streets that face the park; replace blank or parking-lot edges where possible.
  • Diversify what people can do in the park — playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden — even small additions raise this score.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.

Data sources

  • City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
  • Parks & Recreation Facilities
    Inventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
  • Toronto Pedestrian Network
    Sidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
  • Toronto Centreline V2
    Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
  • Toronto 3D Massing
    Building footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
  • Toronto Treed Area
    Tree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
  • Toronto Waterbodies & Rivers
    Water surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
  • Ravine & Natural Feature Protection
    Ravine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
  • Toronto Street Tree Inventory
    Tree count + density inside park polygons.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.